This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our
supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We
welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite
the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. To start a discussion of
this book, you can use the
Discussion form on the LINGUIST List website. For
the subject of the discussion, specify "Book Review" and the issue number of
this review. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for
the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and
follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the
book review staff directly.

SUMMARY This volume is the paperback re-issue of the proceedings of the third Conference on Laboratory Phonology (LabPhon) in 1991, first published as an edited volume in 1994. Its re-issue testifies to the increasing relevance of laboratory approaches to phonology, and also highlights the evolution of the discipline in the sixteen years since 1991. In addition to republishing chapters that have proved since then to be seminal (e.g., Chapter 11, by Pierrehumbert), this book provides an interesting look at the roots of LabPhon from a later point, after significant developments in both theoretical phonology and in experimental work on language processing (e.g. Frisch, Large, & Pisoni, 2000; Pierrehumbert, 2003) that has built on the foundation of early LabPhon work and contributed to the identity and research corpus of this linguistic subfield.

The interdisciplinary nature of LabPhon has always required research to be reported in a way accessible to readers from a variety of backgrounds, and for the most part, that is true of the contributions to this volume. The book is of value to those interested in theoretical phonology and phonetics, as well as in the cognitive representation of sound in language and in sound change diachronically.

The book is laid out in twenty chapters comprising four sections: Intonation, Syllables, Feature Theory, and Phonetic Output. A particularly useful feature of the book is the inclusion of critical responses to most of the chapters.

Keating supplies an introduction in the first chapter, in which she lays out the purpose of both the 1991 conference and the subsequent proceedings. At this point in time, LabPhon was a young discipline characterized by a vital interdisciplinarity as well as considerable variety. The book reported research at the interface between phonology and phonetics, but also sought to show that phonological research could be productively brought into the laboratory without necessarily involving phonetics, for example in psycholinguistics, computational phonology, and sound change. The goal of the book was formative for the discipline, amplifying its domain with respect to phonology while not sacrificing the role of phonetics.

Beckman and Edwards begin the section on intonation by revisiting the question of the phonetic and articulatory correlates of stress. They classify stress and accent (discussed as pitch accent and boundary tones) as having a syntagmatic function, dividing the speech stream into measured units corresponding to, for example, stress feet, intermediate phrases, and intonation phrases. The core of the chapter reports data on the duration, size, and speed of the lip opening gestures in the word _papa_ in different intonational contexts, focusing on the way these variables serve to distinguish various levels of stress and accent. This chapter shares the general goals of this book, testing phonological hypotheses about the English sound system, i.e. that stress and accent serve to mark heads at three levels of the prosodic hierarchy, based on their predictions about articulatory phonetics. In the following chapter Shattuck-Hufnagel comments on this research by expanding on the discussion of stress shift. She briefly reviews how corpus data can also be brought to bear on these questions, namely exemplars from FM-radio-news-style speech.

In Chapter 4, Ladd reviews assumptions about gradient variability in pitch accents in models of intonational phonology, in particular, that of Pierrehumbert (1980 and subsequent). He criticizes in particular the idea that individual pitch accents may vary gradiently to signal differences in prominence, independently of the pitch contour of the rest of the phrase, and argues for linguistic constraints on the variability of individual pitch accents in relation to larger-scale pitch contour relationships. This chapter presents theoretical and experimental evidence for categorical functions of pitch variability, as well as for the existence of an ''Overhigh'' tone in English. Hayes responds to this work in Chapter 5, highlighting the strength of Ladd's analysis in explaining the observed relationship between intonational peaks in speech perception, but also raising some objections to the posited ''Overhigh'' tone. The criticism provides ways of exploring these questions further that fit nicely within a LabPhon approach, suggesting experiments in perceptibility of phonetic contrasts that could elucidate possible phonemic divisions along a continuum of ''prominence''.

VanHeuven in Chapter 6 probes the domain of stress, asking if stress can be thought of as a property of segments, in addition to syllables or words. He reports an experiment in which Dutch native speakers read sentences including CVC words in contrastive focus contexts for each different segment. The critical words were excised from recordings and a separate group of native speakers attempted to match the recordings with the original contrastive context. While there was clear support for the conclusion that the vowel is the head of the prosodic syllable, other results were mixed. There was individual variability in the clarity of contrasts produced by speakers as well as the sensitivity of listeners to prosodic cues at this level of contrast. Data from the most accurate speakers and listeners supported the hypothesis that stress can be a property of the segment, under certain contrastive focus conditions, but these data represented only a few speakers, and the focus contexts examined were highly unusual, which also possibly contributed to the observed variability. VanHeuven also performed an acoustic analysis of several dimensions of the subsyllabic contrasts, but found differences only in the shape and position of the accent pitch contour. In the following chapter, Jongman offers some critique of VanHeuven's methodology, and poses a logical question about locating stress on segments, asking what criteria could be used to determine the minimal hierarchical level that could serve as the locus of stress.

The section on the syllable begins with a chapter by Turk in which she explores the syllabic status of word-medial intervocalic consonants. She reviews different theoretical, phonetic, and psycholinguistic accounts of resyllabification and ambisyllabicity. Centrally, Turk reports the results of an articulatory phonetic study based on upper lip movements in an attempt to resolve some of the issues and ambiguities of this earlier research. While the author and 2 others were the only subjects, thorough discriminant analysis and Analysis of Variance of multiple tokens reveal evidence that intervocalic consonants preceding an unstressed syllable are syllable-final rather than initial or ambisyllabic. However, Turk does not comment on her election of a 0.5 level of probability in classifying the test consonants as either initial or final via the discriminant analysis based on unambiguous tokens. It would be useful to have some analysis of the distribution of the probabilities assigned to the classifications for the ambiguous consonants. Further, there is an assumption that ambisyllabic consonants will share characteristics of both initial and final consonants, but the discriminant analysis may not be the best indicator of this.

Chapter 9, by Rialland, provides a review of the evidence for extrasyllabic consonants in French, and proposes that further study of this structure (particularly using phonetic analysis) would yield insights about both phonetics and phonological structure in French. Rialland presents extensive traditional phonological evidence based on French lexical items, diphthongs, liquid and schwa drop, geminates, and core syllabification rules, as well as some phonetic evidence based on articulator trajectories preceding and following consonants in different prosodic positions. The proposal that phonetic evidence could shed light on the phonological question of extrasyllabicity is at the heart of the goals of this volume, exploring the interface, and also the overlap between phonetics and phonology.

Nolan's chapter provides a brief but insightful response to the chapters by Rialland and, to a lesser extent, Turk. This review takes the idea of using laboratory work in both phonetics and phonology to advance phonological theory one step further, suggesting, based on Rialland and Turk's work on syllable structure and on his own mini-experiment, that the notion of syllabification itself may be in need of revision. This is exactly the type of theoretical refinement that was and continues to be the goal of LabPhon. He shows based on a small data set that electro-palatographic evidence supports one syllabification, but spectral analysis another, and uses these seemingly contradictory results to argue that different articulatory and acoustic dimensions may be relevant to syllable affiliation in different ways. He speculates that this may be due to traces of early steps in a derivation persisting after subsequent resyllabifications, but, again in the spirit of the book, the future would hold still more fundamental refinements of theory such as probabilistic and usage-based phonology (Bybee, 2001; Pierrehumbert, 2003). By posing these questions, Nolan used current research to point the way forward towards innovations such as these.

The seminal chapter by Pierrehumbert gives an analysis of English word-medial consonant clusters based on the assumption that the syllable grammar is stochastic, that is, statistical. Pierrehumbert first presents the results of a dictionary study in which the predicted probability of all possible clusters is calculated based on their frequency in word-initial and word-final position. Particularly valuable is the discussion of the assumptions and decisions necessary in preparing the corpus for this analysis, even at this earlier stage of probabilistic grammar research. The probability calculations excluded the vast majority of possible, but unattested clusters, and Pierrehumbert proposes a series of phonotactic constraints (generally citing independent research to support them) that trim the set down to the inventory attested in English. This dictionary study is followed up with a nonce word experiment to verify the psychological status of some of these constraints. The strand of probabilistic research that succeeded this study has been one of the major contributions to phonological theory growing out of the LabPhon discipline.

McCarthy begins the third section of this volume, on Feature Theory. He gives a comprehensive review of Semitic gutturals, arguing from a wide range of phonetic and phonological evidence that the glottals, pharyngeals, and uvulars constitute a natural class defined by the feature [pharyngeal]. He argues from phonetic evidence to justify the use of this place of articulation as the distinctive feature for this class, conceiving features as orosensory patterns rather than active articulators, and then shows how these sounds pattern together in a variety of contexts, using both synchronic and diachronic data from Semitic languages. The view of LabPhon illustrated here is one of using theoretical phonology, based on distributional data, not lab data, and phonetics, based on laboratory, but not experimental work, to converge on an account of the phenomenon in question. Goldstein critiques McCarthy's work in Chapter 13, suggesting two alternatives to McCarthy's proposal of using the orosensory feature [pharyngeal] to characterize the class of gutturals. In the first, contact along the passive articulators from the lips to the velum is taken to unify all of the non-gutturals over and against the gutturals, and in the second, a Gestural approach based on articulatory phonology is used to argue that the gutturals collectively involve gestures that may not depend on jaw movement. Goldstein closes this contribution to the discussion of gutturals by suggesting studies that might support or argue against these hypotheses and those of McCarthy.

Chapter 14, by Stevens, focuses on the notion that the identification of features, and thus of segments, depends crucially on the transitional areas in the acoustic signal in the immediate vicinity of some acoustic ''landmark''. These ''landmarks'' correspond to discontinuities in the signal for consonants and to peak values for some acoustic parameter for vowels. Special attention is given to the fine-grained and extremely context-sensitive adjustments that must be made in the relative timing of articulatory gestures in order to ensure sufficient cues to feature values in these transitional areas, with significant implications for models of speech production (which are alluded to, but not discussed). The chapter is not as detailed as the others, giving more of an overview of Stevens' attempt to ground phonological categories in phonetics. Goldstein critiques Stevens' chapter by pointing out observations of gestural coordination that cannot be explained as centered on acoustic ''landmarks'' (e.g. when the ''landmarks'' themselves are never produced). Goldstein acknowledges the possible perceptual motivation for acoustic detail in ''landmarks'' and transitional areas, but points out that coordination of gestures is modulated by many other factors as well.

Yaeger-Dror presents analyses of a corpus of conversational Montreal French, focusing on a subsample of interviews with the same individuals at two time points (13 years apart). She gives results from both transcription and acoustic analysis showing that the mid-low long vowels in this variety are undergoing language change resulting in vowel lowering. She discusses this result in light of typological accounts of vowel chain shift, as well as two types of lexical diffusion. The text is somewhat specialized, making it less accessible to a reader not familiar with the background, particularly the work of Labov, but her handling of the data and theoretical background is thorough. The results have implications for larger-scale questions about linguistic typology, universals, and cognitive abilities, but the discussion at this level is not extensive.

In Chapter 17, Coleman describes YorkTalk, a speech generation system based on a non-derivational, declarative architecture. The chapter centers on use of the system to generate polysyllabic words. Much of the discussion is fairly technical, focusing on the declarative representation of word structure in the model, but the narrative style leads the reader closely through the reasoning behind the model and the problems that had to be overcome. A central feature is that there are no processes, and consequently no ordering of derivational steps. When a string is parsed for production, it is read into a structure based on a set of constraints (e.g. of syllable composition) yielding a structured tree. Coleman points out particularly the benefit of this model in doing away with the need for segmentation, thus more accurately capturing phenomena such as coarticulation, gestural overlap, ambisyllabicity, and others. The focus of the chapter is the use of YorkTalk and its underlying phonological theory, Declarative Lexical Phonology, to produce polysyllabic words, with special attention paid to the accurate production of English intervocalic consonants and clusters and to accurate intonation patterns across syllables. Johnson follows this chapter with a few points of consideration. He discusses two primary issues, the arbitrariness of phonology and the input problem, and points out that Declarative Lexical Phonology must rely on specific assumptions in order to deal with these. In particular, Johnson points out how using strings of ''phoneme-like units'' as a starting point limits the scope of the model.

Browman presents two studies in Chapter 19, an experiment measuring several variables related to lip aperture in various CV transitions, and a computational implementation of a gestural account of these data. She demonstrates several asymmetries, tracing the characteristics of the lip aperture gesture to the characteristics of the vowel (rounding, height) or consonant (place), or to a blending of these influences. This is taken to indicate whether the opening gesture at the consonant offset is actively controlled, or whether it is a passive consequence of other movements related to the following vowel. She also gives evidence that, in some cases, there must be an active consonant release, primarily to ensure sufficient vocal openness for the production of high vowels such as [i], but that the presence of an active release does not serve to distinguish continuants from noncontinuants, as was suggested by Steriade (1993). The text is detailed yet easy to follow for a reader unfamiliar with Articulatory Phonology (Browman & Goldstein, 1992). This chapter is right at the crux of the intent of this volume, utilizing both high quality phonetic experimentation and creative thinking about phonological theory to create a fine-grained lens for the further exploration of both fields. Kingston's critique of Browman's chapter closes the book with an exploration of how her findings can be applied to a historical question in phonology, namely, asymmetries in sound changes due to assimilation of consonants to the place of following vowels in Bantu. These facts fall nicely out of Browman's analysis based on the relative influence of consonant and vowel features on the Gestural details of CV transitions. Kingston also suggests, however, that an active consonant release gesture is still necessary in order to convey articulatory information about the consonant, contra Browman. Consonant release gestures serve many purposes beyond providing sufficient aperture for the following vowel. This makes for a productive critique, providing several new questions that build on Browman's work in creative ways, highlighting again the broad base of data and interdisciplinary methods used in LabPhon.

EVALUATION For a book that was originally published in 1994, it is not necessary to spend much time evaluating the precise methodological and theoretical merits of each chapter. There has been ample time for that, and the authors and many others have followed up both the strengths and weaknesses of the work in this volume since then.

I will spend a little time on this republication of the papers from LabPhon3 twelve years after the original volume appeared. The first and most obvious thing to note is that this volume reemphasizes some of the seminal work from the early days of the LabPhon discipline. For example, the chapters by Coleman, Browman, and VanHeuven in particular represent crucial thinking about the very nature of categories and boundaries in phonology, a line of thinking which has continued to inform our understanding of phonemes, features, gestures, syllables, prosody, and the transitional areas between these and other levels of structure. Pierrehumbert's chapter, based on a stochastic phonology of the syllable, is one of the seminal works in probabilistic linguistics (Bod, Hay, & Jannedy, 2003), which has provided new ways of explaining linguistic structure in phonology as well as other areas, and has allowed for important links to be made with work in language acquisition, cognitive linguistics, and a vast body of psycholinguistic research. The volume as a whole, and especially the chapters by Beckman and Edwards, Turk, Rialland, McCarthy, and Stevens, illustrates a broad range of attempts to ground phonology in phonetics, or otherwise explore the close links between phonological grammar and the concrete articulatory and acoustic parameters of speech.

With this, the volume has succeeded in furthering its stated goals of both reporting LabPhon research at the interface between phonology and phonetics, and pushing the boundaries of LabPhon as a discipline in its own right. Naturally, this work was not finished in 1994, as the past decade has proven, and the discipline has evolved considerably, with very productive consequences since then. This volume brings us back to an earlier stage of research with new eyes. It enables us to reassess the questions that were asked then as well as those we ask now. Perhaps, for instance, we now have new ways of breaking down the concept of the phoneme. Browman, for instance, explored sections of the speech stream where the precise articulatory and acoustic features at certain points in time represented a blending of aspects of two ''segments''. It may be useful now to apply the computational and technological tools to transitional cases like these using corpus linguistics or neuroimaging. For example, Event-Related Potentials, or even eye-tracking research (see Magnuson, Dixon, Tanenhaus, & Aslin, 2007) could possibly be used to reveal parallels between the cognitive representation of phonemes, diphthongs, consonant clusters, and even syllables, adding to research showing the complexity, interrelatedness, and even redundancy of the cognitive representation of structure at many levels.

As a field continues to move forward, it is always important to maintain the dialogue with past research, and the re-issue of this volume in paperback is one way in which this can be encouraged.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER Dr. Carlson is a postdoctoral fellow in developmental psychology at the University of Chicago. His interests span adult SLA, first and second language development, phonology and phonetics, psycholinguistics, and emergentist theories of language acquisition.